Insured Refused to Pay Additional Premium for Assault & Battery Coverage
Post 5225
See the video at https://lnkd.in/g-h_eWr6 and at https://lnkd.in/gtcRKMiW, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Exclusion for Assault & Battery Enforced
In Golden Bear Insurance Company v. The Levee Bar & Grill, LLC et al., No. 4:24-CV-00764-DGK (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2025) the bar was sued because of an assault and battery by an intoxicated patron and sought defense and indemnity from its insurer. Golden Bear (GB) denied the claim because of an assault and battery exclusion in its policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Underlying Incident and Lawsuit:
On or about an unspecified date in 2024, Defendant Adrian Hubbard (“Hubbard”), a patron at The Levee, became intoxicated after being overserved alcohol. He was removed from the bar without incident but later engaged in a brief altercation outside, bumping a female security guard. An unknown employee of The Levee (“John Doe”), perceiving a threat to himself or the guard, struck Hubbard in the head, causing him to fall and strike his head on the pavement, resulting in injuries.
Underlying Claims:
Hubbard filed suit against The Levee and John Doe in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court on May 20, 2024 (initial petition), alleging negligent overservice of alcohol and removal. An amended petition filed October 3, 2024, added claims of: (1) negligent supervision/training of John Doe (who allegedly had a proclivity for excessive force, which The Levee condoned); and (2) negligence in John Doe’s use of unreasonable force while acting within the scope of employment.
Coverage Denial:
The Levee tendered the claim to GB Insurance on June 26, 2024, and again after the amendment. GB Insurance denied coverage both times, citing the Exclusion.
Insurance Policy:
Plaintiff Golden Bear Insurance Company (“GB Insurance”) issued a Commercial General Liability policy to Defendant The Levee Bar & Grill, LLC (“The Levee”) for the period January 18, 2023, to January 18, 2024. The policy includes an “Assault and Battery Exclusion” (the “Exclusion”) that bars coverage for bodily injury arising from enumerated acts, allegations, or causes of action, including assault and battery. It contains a “Separation of Insureds” provision, treating coverage for each insured separately as if they were the sole insured.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
GB filed this federal declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking a declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify The Levee in the underlying lawsuit due to the Exclusion. The court stayed the underlying action pending resolution.
GB Insurance moved for judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
1 Does the Exclusion preclude coverage for the underlying claims?
2 Is the Exclusion void as against Missouri public policy, which favors self-defense?
ANALYSIS
To succeed on a motion to dismiss the movant must show no material factual issues remain and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Applicability of Exclusion:
Defendants did not contest GB Insurance’s argument that the Exclusion bars coverage for the underlying tort claims (negligent supervision/training and negligence arising from the alleged assault). This constitutes waiver.
Exclusion Not Void Against Public Policy:
Defendants argued the Exclusion violates Missouri’s policy favoring self-defense (citing a carve-out for “reasonable force to protect persons or property”), entitling coverage for John Doe’s alleged defensive act. The court rejected this as “borderline frivolous,” unsupported by caselaw.
Distinction Between Defenses and Coverage:
Self-defense is a valid criminal/civil defense insulating from liability, but it does not mandate insurance coverage for intentional/excluded conduct. These are separate issues.
Contract Interpretation:
Missouri courts will not rewrite policies to create unagreed coverage. The Levee could have purchased optional assault/battery coverage (at extra premium) but did not. Enforcing the Exclusion upholds freedom of contract and is not against public policy.
HOLDING
The motion was granted. GB Insurance had no duty to defend or indemnify The Levee (or any insured) in the underlying lawsuit because the Exclusion applies without material factual dispute. The Exclusion is enforceable.
CONCLUSION
The court declared the Exclusion applies, absolving GB Insurance of defense/indemnity duties.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance policies limit the risks that the insurer is willing to take. When insuring a bar insurers are usually concerned with the liability of the bar for injuries to third parties due to the intoxication of patrons and the actions of staff to quell disputes between intoxicated persons. GB offered the insured coverage for assault and battery at a higher premium which the insured rejected and opted for the policy with the exclusion and took their chances. When sued the bar attempted to change the policy wording to obtain coverage for which they did not pay a premium only to find itself responsible individually for the costs of defense and indemnity.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
